Use the BIT(n) macro instead of '(1 << n)' in definitions where the bit
semantics clearly applies.

Fixes true positive "Prefer using the BIT macro" checks reported by
checkpatch.

Some of these checks are still triggering on definitions using
'(1 << n)', namely for PIO2_CNTR_SC_DEV1, PIO2_CNTR_RW_LSB and
PIO2_CNTR_MODE1. Leave them be, as the context there is more of a
"multi-bit field value" ((val << n), where for some cases 'val' happens
to be 1) rather than a "single bit" (1 << n), so keeping the value as is
in the code makes it more readable that using a combination of BIT
macros.
Signed-off-by: Ricardo Silva <rjpdasilva@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>